Absolute rest - What does it mean?

For the moderators Information:
I have voluntarilly and on my own initiative gone through all the editable posts in this thread and deleted all posts that are off topic.
I suggest that if Alphanumeric wishes to pursue his case he creates a thread in the appropriate forum

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

I mean, even if you have a block floating in space, you would need some way to calibrate this system against the universe. I suppose this could be done using some kind of detector (emission spectrum) that would check the red and blue shifts of the thermal radiation of this block. . . However, this still maybe isn't absolute rest because of the whole 'expanding universe' craziness. The universe expanded faster than the speed of light, and perhaps it still is (??) . This would mean that even if the block was not moving in that frame of reference it could still be moving due to the expansion of the universe... light always moves at the same speed, and yet the universe expanded faster than light. :bugeye:

Whether or not there is an absolute reference point is debatable. Say that you find the point in the universe where the overall momentum of the expanding universe cancels out. Momentum of the universe is constant? Does this point remain stationary or shift around? Does mass account for the universe expanding faster than light?

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

I mean, even if you have a block floating in space, you would need some way to calibrate this system against the universe. I suppose this could be done using some kind of detector (emission spectrum) that would check the red and blue shifts of the thermal radiation of this block. . . However, this still maybe isn't absolute rest because of the whole 'expanding universe' craziness. The universe expanded faster than the speed of light, and perhaps it still is (??) . This would mean that even if the block was not moving in that frame of reference it could still be moving due to the expansion of the universe... light always moves at the same speed, and yet the universe expanded faster than light. :bugeye:

Whether or not there is an absolute reference point is debatable. Say that you find the point in the universe where the overall momentum of the expanding universe cancels out. Momentum of the universe is constant? Does this point remain stationary or shift around? Does mass account for the universe expanding faster than light?

Click to expand...

The universe will have to be taken on its own . The use of the granite block was a sort of whim. I had also suggested that the emmission of a single complete wave length of light also defines an absolute frame at rest as the "photon" motion is independent of the motion of the source. It is the observers problem to maitain the location of the point from which the photion was emitted, but the fact of difficulty says nothing regarding the actual physical characteristice of the absolute frame.erms.

Those persons who reject the concept of absolute frame based on relativity principles such as the claim that the absouite rest frame would generate evil physical monsters because the laws of physics would differ on such a frame have not verified their fears eperimentally, have they. The SR theorist is the classic divergeance from rational analysis methods that they are now kin ahabitual mode so ingrained that actual experimental testing would be a disgrace to their stature in the heiarchy of 'science' - converted SR theorists -- SR ro classic science -- arev rarities. IO know because I dropped out of the silliness when discovering that I would be too similar to the AlpahaNumerics of trhe world who wear a pepretual face of disgust expressed in overt anger and insult when dealing with the 'forehead scarred' caste of persons who arrogantly choose to to study other disciplines in science.

The universe will have to be taken on its own . The use of the granite block was a sort of whim. I had also suggested that the emmission of a single complete wave length of light also defines an absolute frame at rest as the "photon" motion is independent of the motion of the source. It is the observers problem to maitain the location of the point from which the photion was emitted, but the fact of difficulty says nothing regarding the actual physical characteristice of the absolute frame.erms.

Click to expand...

That isn't finding a frame which is 'special', you are simply making a physical system from which you can define motion and position relative to. You're doing nothing more than picking coordinates. If it's absolute rest you have to show that if someone did exactly the same as you but picked a different set of stars, which meant their block was moving relative to yours at a constant velocity that somehow the rules of physics they see are different.

If 'absolute rest' is possible then you need be able to find an experiment which shows that there's a particular inertial frame which is special, just as the MM experiment tried to show there's a frame light prefers due to the aether.

Those persons who reject the concept of absolute frame based on relativity principles such as the claim that the absouite rest frame would generate evil physical monsters because the laws of physics would differ on such a frame have not verified their fears eperimentally, have they.

Click to expand...

You previously claimed that GPS satellites didn't measure special relativity motion time dilation and it took me 4 seconds to find evidence otherwise. Now you're claiming experiments involving looking for a prefered frame haven't been done, when the MM experiment is a famous one. Every theory which involves a prefered frame has fallen by the wayside, because relativity beats it in experiments. There isn't 'evil physics monsters' if there's a prefered frame, though it would make the universe less 'elegant'. Lorentz violation (ie the idea not all inertial frames are equivalent) pops up all the time, generally when people have run out of other ideas for something. The big thing in the theoretical physics community at the beginning of this year was Horava gravity, which was based on the principle of Lorentz violation.

So when you say people haven't done experiments, you're lying. If you say people immediately and utterly reject Lorentz violation, you're lying.

The SR theorist is the classic divergeance from rational analysis methods that they are now kin ahabitual mode so ingrained that actual experimental testing would be a disgrace to their stature in the heiarchy of 'science

Click to expand...

A flat out lie. Special relativity is tested by GPS systems all the time. Measurements of the orbit of the Moon are so precise that we can test if relativity correctly predicts the orbit so accurately that we even have to account for the pressure light exerts on the Moon, which alters its orbit by a few millimetres. How's that for a test? Or every day in particular colliders, which push particles to 99.99999% the speed of light, where relativistic effects are enormous.

Relativity is one of, if not the, most tested theory in human history. The fact you don't think experiments are done implies that either you haven't even bothered to type "special relativity, experiments" into Google or you know there are experiments and you're so desperate to take a shot at relativity that you'll just lie.

e I dropped out of the silliness when discovering that I would be too similar to the AlpahaNumerics of trhe world who wear a pepretual face of disgust expressed in overt anger and insult when dealing with the 'forehead scarred' caste of persons who arrogantly choose to to study other disciplines in science.

Click to expand...

I do not for a second believe you have the brain capacity or a sufficiently rational mind to grasp actual science. You didn't drop out because of that, you were never going to get anywhere anyway. You don't even know calculus so you obviously didn't get very far, as multidimensional calculus needed to grasp Newton's Shell theorem is stuff 1st years know. Or even good high school students. You obviously fell at a very early hurdle.

Every theory which involves a prefered frame has fallen by the wayside

Click to expand...

yet not one of them has used zero dimensional space as an absolute rest "frame"
Giest if I am not mistaken is alluding with his PIP issue [ point of departure of a photon] as a zero dimensional rest frame...
as to the other use of mass [the block of ganite]I am not convinced Giests's arguement is sound however the pip of light emission seem quite sound to me.

hilarious because of your lack of understanding or hilarious because you think the post was funny?

Challenge:
Site one mathematical equation, function or notation that does not either actually use, or imply the use of zero in acheiving it's results.
If that is not mathematical evidence of an absolute rest frame I have no idea what is.
Pretty obvious ain't it?

Even the old Newtonian Ether is compared against Zero...No wonder it makes no sense to use an ether as absolute rest.....as zero is always and already implied in everthing of substance by default and comparison.

yet not one of them has used zero dimensional space as an absolute rest "frame"

Click to expand...

Because zero dimensional space is not physical? If the universe were a zero dimensional point then movement would be impossible as there's only be one place objects can exist and so you could define absolute rest. That's not true for any non-zero dimensonal spacial region though.

Challenge:
Site one mathematical equation, function or notation that does not either actually use, or imply the use of zero in acheiving it's results.
If that is not mathematical evidence of an absolute rest frame I have no idea what is.
Pretty obvious ain't it?

Click to expand...

So when I talk about being able to construct Minkowski space-time and special relativity without the use of a photon I'm just playing with abstract concepts, not physics, but when you claim you've got 'mathematical evidence of an absolute reference frame' that's fine? Nice hypocrisy. Again.

And the use of zero doesn't mean there's an absolute rest frame. Clearly the basic principles in coordinate geometry are too much for you. Go find a local high school and sit in on their maths lessons.

Because zero dimensional space is not physical? If the universe were a zero dimensional point then movement would be impossible as there's only be one place objects can exist and so you could define absolute rest.

Click to expand...

ahhh I see you are starting to get the point.... yes exactly.... motion would be impossible there fore at absolute rest. Of course zero dimensional space is NOT physical. It can't be as it is zero dimensional. It is only the physical stuff in it that grants it reality and only by default.

If you follow the logic for a little while you will find the starting point to understanding inertia...and how objects of mass can share it exactly as a constant because as you have said in zero dimensional space no motion is possible.

However when expanded to 4 dimensions movement is indeed possible yet maintaining the constancy of inertia as the zero*infinite space factor doesn't just go away because objects of mass are present.

In this sense everything is one object spread out all over the universe and separated by zero dimesnional space. In other words the entire universe is "entangled" and the amount of effort to breakor change that entanglement is determined by inertia.

That's not true for any non-zero dimensonal spacial region though.

Click to expand...

as posited it takes objects of mass to grant 4 dimensions to zero dimensional space. Thus we can posit a "backdrop" of infinite zero dimensionality [vacuum] to 4 dimensional space

say you take a large sealable container out into deep space and you extract all substance totally from inside the container.
You bring that container back to earth and sit it in a lab and again you find that there is absolutely nothing inside the container except vaccumous space.

How much volume of nothing [vacuum ] is inside the container....?

How much space is able to fit into the container if that inner container volume has nothing in it?

That volume has absolutely no movement, no change and nothing in it....thus it is at absolute rest.

Theoretically impossible due to micro particles etc but it's the thinking behind it that counts.

How many times can you add zero to zero and still get zero?
after all zero *infinity is still zero
it also gives you a hint as to the nature of gravity and why it is universally "exactly" constant....always exactly constant regardless of relative velocity or cosmic expansion

Absolute standard of rest refers only to motion through space. It has nothing to do with changes that don't involve motion.

Click to expand...

If a pulse of light is directed at a mirror moving perpendicular and laying perpendicular to the pulse trajectory, then the reflected pulse would return up the same trajectory followed when moving toward the mirror.

Using the mirror as a source of light, or even just as a reflector, the light must return after reflection on the same trajectory used when approaching the mirror. If this were not the case then the light that is deflected at an angle in the direction of the moving mirror would then have this additional 'mirror moving' velocity added to its linear velocity and the speed of light reflected would then be where Cr is the speed of the reflected beam, Cr = C + Cd where Cd is the deflected velocity.

In other words what law of physics generates the angle of the reflected light (ALA Michelson-Morley)?

Or in words directly pertinent to James R above, both pulses of light, the emitted and reflected light define a light beam trajectory that is at absolute rest. The two trajectories are at rest wrt each other and are located on the same line - the pulses always follow the invariant trajectory.

I give Jame R that the pulses may be moving, but all observers must measure an invariant trajectory of both emitted and reflected pulses, that is, motion wise, at absolute rest.:shrug:

When light hits a mirror, the angle of reflection of the beam is always equal to the angle of incidence. That's simple optics, and has nothing to do with relativity.

Click to expand...

The point issimple and it fits perfectly with your post. A pulse of light is directed perpendicular to the moving mirror. We both agree that the angle of reflection will be pi/2, hence the pulse returns on the same trajectory as the arrival trajectory.

The significance of this is seen in virtually every Michelson-Morley experimental description where the split beam deflected perpendicular to the direction of motion and strikes a mirror mov-ng perpndiclulr to the split beam i is drawn as adopting a trajectory of a triangle as if the beam "were carried along" by the movng frame attachedto the mirror.

The MM experiment should have measured the distance between the reflected split beam and the beam movng parallel to the 'mirror' frame when the beams reach a common scintllating screen.

I calculated about a 1 cm separation of the two beams assuming a 30 km/s orbital speed and the beam lengths approximately 300 meters.
The light travels .300km/300,000km/s = 10^-6 s. Ergo the earth has moved 10^-6s (30km/s) = 3.0x10^-5 km = 3x 10^-5 ~ 3cm.

MM screwed up the experiment by focusing on the two reunited beams as a wave-length solution, or interference effect, while ignoring the fact that the speed of light is, as you said James R (effectively) that is, that the independence of light moton reqires the angles of incidence and reflection be pi/2. The histrical MM experiment proved nothing re relativity, ether etc.

Ifyou still don't see my point I am t a loss to offer adfvice, but at leat we have made a mjor break through in cming to man jnambiguous agreement regrdinf the angles of incidence and reflction of te light beam.

say you take a large sealable container out into deep space and you extract all substance totally from inside the container.
You bring that container back to earth and sit it in a lab and again you find that there is absolutely nothing inside the container except vaccumous space.

How much volume of nothing [vacuum ] is inside the container....?

How much space is able to fit into the container if that inner container volume has nothing in it?

That volume has absolutely no movement, no change and nothing in it....thus it is at absolute rest.

Theoretically impossible due to micro particles etc but it's the thinking behind it that counts.

How many times can you add zero to zero and still get zero?
after all zero *infinity is still zero
it also gives you a hint as to the nature of gravity and why it is universally "exactly" constant....always exactly constant regardless of relative velocity or cosmic expansion

Click to expand...

QQ, I just want to point out the BB theory regarding its inflated expansion duration. If you are sitting next to me just before the expansion starts to 'expand' (this requires gravity pushing insead of sucking, but only for a very short time), we will see each other apparently moving away from each other at many orders of magnitude greater than c. However, SR isn't compromised here as you and I aren't moving - the space between us is expanding, hence BB theory ascribes a physical reality to space as something tangible and subject to manipultion and change. I am not saying space is a highly diluted state of matter, but it sure seems that BB theory ascribes some such characteristics to space much different than "the void"; that was necessary in order to maintain a "perfect" state of matter necessary for continued expansion.

The problem was that separated expanding matter needed synchronization that maintained the perfect state over the total volume expanding. This could not be provided by the forces moving at the slow speed of light. Hence, inflationary expansion was so rapid that no imperfection in the expanding matter had time enough to change from its perfect state, thus permittng expansion to contniue up to this very moment.

A paper which has been falsified by experiments, both before and since. Funny how you'll read a paper which tells you what you want to know but reading a book on calculus so you can understand Newton's Shell Theorem or doing a few exercises in special relativity so you can understand how relativistic velocity addition works is too much for you to do, despite the total work amounting to no more than a few homework exercises expected of 1st year students.

The significance of this is seen in virtually every Michelson-Morley experimental description where the split beam deflected perpendicular to the direction of motion and strikes a mirror mov-ng perpndiclulr to the split beam i is drawn as adopting a trajectory of a triangle as if the beam "were carried along" by the movng frame attachedto the mirror.

Click to expand...

I still can't work out what you're saying.

In a different frame of reference, the beam will not strike the mirror at 90 degrees, but it is still reflected at an angle equal to the angle of incidence.

Suppose you are driving directly North towards a railway crossing on a rail line that runs east-west. A person sitting on a train heading east will, in their moving frame, see you as moving somewhat north-west.

A paper which has been falsified by experiments, both before and since. Funny how you'll read a paper which tells you what you want to know but reading a book on calculus so you can understand Newton's Shell Theorem or doing a few exercises in special relativity so you can understand how relativistic velocity addition works is too much for you to do, despite the total work amounting to no more than a few homework exercises expected of 1st year students.